It took us a while, but we finally got here. In 2015, humanity takes the step which has previously only been taken in sci-fi novels. Perhaps next we should expect flying cars and cyborgs.

However, let’s take a step back and examine this for a sec.

When it comes to issues of morality, everybody knows that there should be a line drawn in the sand between what’s acceptable and what’s unacceptable. All it takes to blur the line is one step over it. 

Yeah… we made that step, and it just made the news:

British lawmakers in the House of Commons voted Tuesday to allow scientists to create babies from the DNA of three people — a move that could prevent some children from inheriting potentially fatal diseases from their mothers.

The vote in the House of Commons was 382-128 in favor. The bill must next be approved by the House of Lords before becoming law. If so, it would make Britain the first country in the world to allow embryos to be genetically modified.

Well done, Britain. Again, you have said your royal word. Now, I love that once again you have stated your support for minority groups. I mean, this will revolutionize gay-surrogate relationships! And as you know, I’m all for minorities getting out of stuffy closets and walking tall in the streets.

Most of all, I want every single human on this planet to be happy. 🙂

However, let’s take another step back and examine this from a… broader perspective. Forget about political issues and minority rights for a minute. Consider the whole picture: it’s not just engineering plants and experimenting on worms and mice anymore. We are – not just the UK, but the whole of humanity – playing God in our own yards. I mean, it’s OK to be God in the operating room and maybe on Mars, but… when you poop in your own back yard, you’re the one who has to clean it.

Are you still reading the Washington Post article? Here’s a good point:

The controversial techniques — which aim to prevent mothers from passing on inherited diseases — involve altering a human egg or embryo before transferring it into the mother. British law currently forbids any such modification and critics say approving the techniques could lead to the creation of “designer babies.”

No kidding. Yes, fixing genetic faults and saving babies from having diseases is nobler than choosing what eye color you want your kid to have. I can give you that. Just bear in mind what I said about the line in the sand – once the tiny specks are scattered, no other line will work as well as the first one.

Now the article’s getting really interesting:

Critics, however, say the techniques cross a fundamental scientific boundary, since the changes made to the embryos will be passed on to future generations.

So we’re creating mutants. Silly me, I thought those were human babies.

And oh – this will only be done on “about a dozen British women every year who have faulty mitochondria” before fertilization. What a relief! So unless you stick those women and the donors and the babies in quarantine and leave them there for the rest of their lives, you’re letting these “fully-functional families” out into the world where they can reproduce and spread their mutant gene further. And what happens if the gene develops an unlikely anomaly or creates a generation with a genetic fault?

Or God forbid, this turns out to be something as stupid as the  “siblings and cousins can marry and have offspring, yay” theme. – Yeah, that was a great idea. (Sarcasm sustains me.) If you want to do trial-and-error, do it on yourself, on your routine, your wardrobe, or your politics.

Not your genes.

Granted, I am not a scientist. But I do know some things. For example, I know that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And that we make mistakes out of the goodness of our hearts. But most of all – that nothing is wasted in Nature. I know that those faulty mitochondria are serving one purpose or another. And I worry that removing them could produce another problem – possibly a much bigger one.

Morality aside, Nature should not be meddled with.

You can quote me when in 100 years we have these guys for neighbors:

What do you think? Are you for or against this development?